On Tue 2018-02-06 02:02:19, Sasha Levin wrote:> On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 06:17:36PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:> >> >> > > >> *** if brightness=0, led off> >> > > >> *** else apply brightness if next timer <--- timer is stop, and will never apply new setting> >> > > >> ** otherwise set led_set_brightness_nosleep> >> > > >>> >> > > >> To fix that, when we delete the timer, we should clear LED_BLINK_SW.> >> > > >> >> > > >Can you run the tests on the affected stable kernels? I have feeling> >> > > >that the problem described might not be present there.> >> > >> >> > > Hm, I don't seem to have HW to test that out. Maybe someone else does?> >> >> >> > Why are you submitting patches you have no way to test?> >>> >> What? This is stable tree backporting, why are you trying to make a> >> requirement for something that we have never had before?> >> >I don't think random patches should be sent to stable just because> >they appeared in mainline. Plus, I don't think I'm making new rules:> >> >submit-checklist.rst:> >> >13) Has been build- and runtime tested with and without ``CONFIG_SMP``> >and> > ``CONFIG_PREEMPT.``> >> >stable-kernel-rules.rst:> >> >Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not,> >into the "-stable" tree:> >> > - It must be obviously correct and tested.> > - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a> > problem..." type thing).> > So you're saying that this doesn't qualify as a bug?

I'm saying that this does not qualitfy as severe enoughbug. stable-kernel-rules.rst describes what bugs are severe enough,and this is not one of them.